Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then so must any chemical reaction.
But with respect to "monkeying with physics" we understand how chemical reactions work; the naturalistic explanations are entirely sufficient. There appears to be no room for "extra" causality.on some level yes, the fundamental forces, the universal constants, the energies in atoms, all specify something beyond themselves; ultimately the life supporting world we live in, and all add to the evidence for an intellect 'monkeying with physics' as I think Hoyle put it?
If your method of detection just matches literally everything then it doesn't mean anything.on some level yes, the fundamental forces, the universal constants, the energies in atoms, all specify something beyond themselves; ultimately the life supporting world we live in, and all add to the evidence for an intellect 'monkeying with physics' as I think Hoyle put it?
But with respect to "monkeying with physics" we understand how chemical reactions work; the naturalistic explanations are entirely sufficient. There appears to be no room for "extra" causality.
If your method of detection just matches literally everything then it doesn't mean anything.
Your definition of information doesn't appear to be measurable or quantifiable... so it can't be declared to increase or decrease.
That's really dumb. No one says that. We know how chemical reactions work, and their behavior is completely explained by the action of natural forces. If there other forces helping to push the atoms around, how can they be detected?That's the watchmaker fallacy- 'we understand how the watch works, so intelligent agency is not required..'
I can't say I'm familiar with the gorilla reproductive cycle, but going from 3 to 4 offspring is not necessarily a big change (it might be as simple as increasing the likelihood of twins, or reducing the time between first ovulation and breeding, or a slight reduction in infant mortality); the question is whether it is a long term advantage.I'd agree, though the vast majority of mutations are neutral/deleterious - the vast majority of advantages are slight
a slightly advantageous difference has an extremely tenuous link with having more offspring.
If a mountain Gorilla has an average of 3 offspring in her life, how large an advantage must she have, in order to cause her to be more likely to have 4? that's a whopping advantage, not the sort of thing gained through slight natural variations commonly observed
How do you tell signal from noise? specifically, do you recognize that it 'specifies something beyond what inherently constitutes it's medium?simply by recognizing that it specifies something beyond itself- i.e. beyond what inherently constitutes it's medium
No, back to the pile of 100 bricks dumped by the loader
their pattern contains more total information than a neat 10 x 10 wall-
but the wall contains the greater amount of specifying information ( a wall) which allows us to easily tell which was intelligently designed
The irony here is that yes, nature is full of specifying information which we grow up with deeming 'natural' and hence 'unremarkable' with no direct sign of intelligent agency, it's easy to form a concept of 'inevitable specification' occurring naturally, but to examine it truly objectively... where did this information come from?
That's really dumb. No one says that. We know how chemical reactions work, and their behavior is completely explained by the action of natural forces. If there other forces helping to push the atoms around, how can they be detected?
I can't say I'm familiar with the gorilla reproductive cycle, but going from 3 to 4 offspring is not necessarily a big change (it might be as simple as increasing the likelihood of twins, or reducing the time between first ovulation and breeding, or a slight reduction in infant mortality); the question is whether it is a long term advantage.
How do you tell signal from noise? specifically, do you recognize that it 'specifies something beyond what inherently constitutes it's medium?
Let's say you see a simple pattern of sticks or stones on the ground or some gouges on a tree trunk - how would you tell that it 'specifies something beyond what inherently constitutes its medium'?
Suppose you come across a hoofprint in the mud - it is information that tells you that a young roe deer passed that way recently - it appears to 'specify something beyond what inherently constitutes its medium', does that mean it's of intelligent origin?
And if instead they spelled something in another script, in another language you would never know.if the sticks or stones spell 'HELP' or 'I LOVE JANE' - your best guess is that they were intelligently arranged
"the question is whether it is a long term advantage"
exactly! if it takes a long term for the advantage (natural selection) to present itself over many generations, then what phenomena is preserving this slight advantage meanwhile? Remembering that in the vast majority of situations in the wild, most genetic lines die out regardless? your own natural anticipation and desire to preserve that small advantage- it works in thought experiments, not in cold hard algorithms
So you can guess the information is 'specifying' only if it matches something you already know is the product of intelligence?if the sticks or stones spell 'HELP' or 'I LOVE JANE' - your best guess is that they were intelligently arranged
And if instead they spelled something in another script, in another language you would never know.
So you can guess the information is 'specifying' only if it matches something you already know is the product of intelligence?
Having failed to provide us with quantitative measure of this information you are talking about, you now want to talk about qualitative measures?correct
that would be a false negative
if we looked at a randomly generated sequence of 1s and 0s beside a chunk of machine code, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference either.
And Darwin could not observe the digital code in DNA
But false positives become exponentially less likely with the quality and quantity of information you can identify,
Right. According to you, we only reject the concept with respect to the theory of evolution, because we're afraid of discovering God. How you explain why most Christians reject ID as well would make for an interesting post, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.the info in DNA is vast, in any other context it would be considered proof beyond reasonable doubt that the source was intelligent
I don't know whether that mutation has a small advantage or not - but in any case, there's no point my having any 'anticipation and desire to preserve' a mutation - it will persist or not regardless. There are probably reasons why gorillas don't have more offspring - for example, an extra infant may be one too many mouths to feed.
The mutation will continue down subsequent generations unless it is seriously detrimental.
If it provides a long term advantage those carrying it will eventually predominate in the population.
the info in DNA is vast, in any other context it would be considered proof beyond reasonable doubt that the source was intelligent
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?